The anger and disappointment have faded a little, to a kind of dull ache. I've had a couple days to think, and read other peoples' thoughts and to process some of the election data.
It looks like the 18-24 voter segment did show up, at least moreso than in previous elections. Can't pin the loss on the youth vote not showing up...
My brother-in-law asked me via a voicemail message who I plan on supporting "now that the Democratic party is dead." I have to say it's hard for me to see how they're dead... they got 48% of the vote, and the electoral college loss was fairly narrow, compared to some recent elections.
Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater in '64, with something around 60% of the popular vote. It turned out that the Goldwater loss actually layed the foundation for Republican victories in the 70s and 80s, and even into the present. The Republicans learned from their devastating loss in '64.
Nixon destroyed McGovern in '72, and yet Carter won a close election only four years later. Bush easily won in '88, and had an approval rating in the 90% range only 18 months before Bill Clinton unseated him (with some help from Ross Perot, of course).
The point is, the Democratic party may have serious issues with their message, and their candidate selection processes, but they are far from finished as a party. It is a grave mistake to underestimate your opponent in politics, as events can often cause radical shifts in public perceptions. Just ask George Herbert Walker Bush. And the fact of the matter is, John Kerry did not lose by all that great a margin. A more resonant message, a more charismatic candidate, and we could easily have been talking about a Democrat having taken the White House in '04.
Posted by jbuie at November 5, 2004 11:25 AM